Knowledge Assessment Instrument Self-Assessment

PIDP 3230 – Evaluation of Learning
Vancouver Community College
Kathryn Truant
June 4, 2017

Knowledge Assessment Instrument – Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery Module for Certified Dental Assistants (CDA’s): Unit One – The Perioperative Period
Self-Assessment

Rubric:

Screen Shot 2017-08-26 at 10.58.56 AM

  1. a) Reflection:

What did I learn about creating this instrument?

While creating my KAI, I learned that assessment is driven by accountability; it must be valid (contain items that reflect what was taught in my course), and reliable (reflect the learning outcomes).  I learned that for my KAI to be valid and reliable, I need to follow these steps:

7 Steps to Creating a Valid and Reliable Exam

  1. Identify curriculum to be assessed.
    e.g. important outcomes
  1. Select the type of items, complexity, and evidence of learning by creating a Table of Specifications.
    e.g. knowledge
  1. Use best practices in writing valid and reliable items.
    e.g. clear concise language
  1. Use best practices in exam layout.
    e.g. Provide a cover page with instructions
    e.g. Group types of items together from easy to complex
    e.g. Number items consecutively
  1. Create a Scoring Guide for students
  2. Peer Edit.
  3. Prepare learner.
    e.g. accountability to student
    e.g. create an environment of trust

Creating a KAI that is valid and reliable is important to the learner, and beneficial to the instructor – the student receives feedback regarding how much they have learned, and the instructor receives feedback regarding their competency. The opportunity to self-assess and self-reflect will help me improve my abilities as an instructor.

 What are the strengths and weaknesses of my KAI?

My KAI reflects the lessons and outcomes of Unit One of my DACUM in PIDP 3210. The item types correspond to the complexity of the unit. I followed best practices when writing my items so that they would be valid and reliable. I followed best practices while arranging and formatting the layout of my KAI so that it would look professional, and follow a logical sequence. I also provide an answer key because I followed the recommendation of my instructor to look at former student’s exemplars, and saw that some had included answer keys with their KAI’s.

The weakness of my KAI is the lack of professional feedback from my instructor, and peer feedback from my classmates. I solicited feedback from both in a timely manner, but unfortunately received none from my classmates, and it wasn’t until I went to submit the KAI itself (on the day that it was due – today!) that I noticed my instructor’s feedback comments; how long had they been there? I received no notification of feedback received, and had been constantly checking my email and the course Forum. I spent a lot of time reviewing and editing the instrument myself, and was fortunate to have a colleague review it as well. This is a still a positive learning experience for me because my instructor’s comments are now helpful, and now I know where to look for feedback 🙂

  1. b) Rubric Rationale:

Referring to the rubric, I benchmarked my KAI at a Level 3. I feel that item and best practices are consistently applied reflecting a valid and reliable and bias free KAI. The layout has a professional look and feel, and all technical specifications have been met. However, I am a student and this is the first KAI that I have written; without any timely professional formative feedback, some issues likely exist.

  1. c) Self-Assessment Mark:

4.5/5